Evolving Executable Pipeline Programs for AutoML with Language Models

Automated machine learning (AutoML) systems search for pipelines within a space of preprocessing operators, learners, and hyper-parameters specified in advance: they can select and tune known components, but cannot produce structure outside that space. We present LACE, an AutoML framework that instead searches over complete executable pipeline programs: an evolutionary loop maintains a population of scikit-learn-compatible Python classes, and a large language model acts as the variation operator. To our knowledge, LACE is the first to formulate general tabular pipeline AutoML this way, evaluated on standardized OpenML tasks under a leakage-controlled protocol that withholds dataset identity from the generator. Because every candidate is ordinary Python, the returned pipeline and the search that produced it can be inspected and edited directly, rather than only through a framework's model objects. On 68 OpenML classification tasks, LACE with GPT-5.4-mini significantly outperforms auto-sklearn, H2O, and a fixed XGBoost baseline, with no detectable difference against AutoGluon, the strongest search-based system evaluated, while covering the full benchmark. Newer tabular foundation models are more accurate on the subset of tasks they support, but apply a fixed pretrained predictor rather than returning an editable task-specific program. LACE's contribution is therefore not raw accuracy but a search space defined by code: complete coverage, pipelines practitioners can reuse directly, and a component set extended by editing the prompt rather than the framework.

Winning by Peeking: Unenforced Budgets and Test-Set Selection Inflate Short-Budget AutoML Comparisons

Comparisons between AutoML systems at short time budgets -- tens of seconds rather than hours -- are common in tool READMEs and workshop papers, and they are easy to get wrong. We report a case study in which a simple AutoML engine, Orcetra, appeared to beat FLAML and AutoGluon on 513 OpenML datasets, winning 57.1% of them at a nominal 60-second budget and 78.4% of datasets against FLAML alone at 30 seconds. Both margins came from protocol defects that a results table cannot show. The search loop scored every candidate on the test split and reported the best, making the headline metric a maximum over dozens of noisy estimates while the baselines selected on training data and touched the test set once; and the budget was checked before launching a candidate but never enforced during one, so the system consumed a median of 120 s against a 60-second budget, 2.24x the wall-clock AutoGluon used. Re-running with selection moved to a validation split, the deadline enforced externally and every framework pinned to an equal share of the machine, Orcetra's win rate on the re-run subset falls from 59.4% to 34.3% and no pairwise difference against either competitor remains significant. Recording both estimands inside a single search lets us attribute the collapse: the selection rule accounts for 4.8 percentage points and unequal compute for most of the rest. The same traces give the selection bias as a function of budget, measured rather than assumed: it grows with $K$ but reaches only 0.27 accuracy points, about five times below the $σ\sqrt{2\ln K}$ bound a marginal-standard-error argument predicts, because candidates scored on shared test rows cancel most of the noise. We close with a checklist for short-budget comparisons. Code, per-dataset results and the scripts that regenerate every number and figure in the paper are released with it.

Enhancing Automated Machine Learning via Homogeneous Train-Test Splitting Methods

Accurate model evaluation in machine learning depends critically on how datasets are split into training and testing subsets. Standard random splitting assumes that both partitions share the same underlying distribution, an assumption often violated in datasets with class imbalance, natural clustering, or spatial autocorrelation. This paper investigates the role of statistical similarity in train-test splitting and its consequences for AutoML model evaluation. Five established strategies are compared across fifteen UCI benchmark datasets: random splitting, stratified sampling, Kennard-Stone, Duplex, and SPXY. Similarity is assessed using chi-square, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) tests. Geometry-based methods consistently produce near-zero MMD scores, introducing instability into downstream performance estimates. The proposed Optimised-Distribution method treats similarity as an explicit optimisation objective and achieves the highest mean MMD similarity, 89.0%, across all strategies evaluated.

Gradient-Descent Steps to Success over Mean Accuracy: A Paradigm Shift for ML

Traditional evaluation of machine learning (ML) models typically focuses on achieving the maximum possible accuracy irrespective of the computational cost. In this article, we propose a paradigm shift towards evaluating performance based on computational effort-explicitly defined here as the total number of gradient descent steps required to reach an acceptable level of accuracy with high probability. Building upon the concept of computational effort originally introduced by Koza for Genetic Programming, we extend this metric to any ML model trained via gradient descent. Furthermore, we demonstrate that minimising this effort acts as a novel form of Automatic Machine Learning (AutoML). By evaluating it across 11 diverse ML models and five standard classification datasets, we uncover significant insights into the dynamics of gradient-based learning. Our findings reveal that optimal hyper-parameters consistently favour unusually large learning rates. Crucially, we demonstrate that the rapid, aggressive landscape traversal enabled by these large rates not only promotes generalisation-as seen in phenomena like superconvergence-but also statistically minimises the expected computational effort for training. Furthermore, we identify distinct phase transitions in the optimal search strategy: while a single training run suffices for lower accuracy targets, reaching a model's performance limit requires a dramatic shift towards conducting numerous independent, short restarts. Finally, we illustrate how this effort-based paradigm provides a robust framework for model selection, allowing practitioners to choose optimal algorithms based on the difficulty of a problem as perceived by different models for a given target accuracy, or to maximise the achievable accuracy for a fixed budget of gradient descent steps.

Towards Robust Training in NNGPT AutoML Pipeline: A Loss-Optimizer Pairing Selection Study

The choice of loss function and optimizer is an important decision, that shapes further model training. Yet automated architecture search pipelines (AutoML) benefits significantly more from the optimal pairing selection and vice versa. This paper investigates whether a single recipe is sufficient for heterogeneous architecture pools, or whether the optimal pairing varies across structurally diverse models. We conduct a systematic empirical study of all $3 \times 6 = 18$ combinations of six optimizers (SGD+Momentum, Adam, AdamW, RMSprop, Adagrad, Adadelta), paired with three loss functions: Cross-Entropy (CEL), Negative Log-Likelihood (NLL), and the recently introduced genetically evolved NGL loss across the base models presented in LEMUR heterogeneous architecture pool on six image classification datasets (CelebA-Gender, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, ImageNette, MNIST, SVHN). The 18 loss-optimizer configurations are applied to each of the 33 compatible base architectures taken from the LEMUR pool, resulting in 594 variants that were generated fully automatically by a source-level injection pipeline and evaluated under fixed hyperparameters, ensuring that observed accuracy differences are attributable solely to the loss-optimizer pairing. Our results confirm that no single pairing is universally optimal. Cross-Entropy with Adam or AdamW is the most robust choice across architecture families and datasets. NGL is a competitive alternative to CEL on standard convolutional classifiers, but only when paired with adaptive optimizers; it degrades substantially with SGD or accumulation-based methods. Adagrad and Adadelta consistently underperform under fixed hyperparameters regardless of loss function, highlighting their sensitivity to learning rate tuning. These findings provide actionable guidance for loss-optimizer selection within NNGPT Framework.

Provably Reduced Sample Cost in Prior-Guided Hyperparameter Optimization

Large-scale hyperparameter optimization (HPO) in automated machine learning (AutoML) consumes substantial computational resources, raising growing concerns about scalability and energy efficiency. Existing methods use prior information heuristically to accelerate both black-box and multi-fidelity settings, but they lack a characterization of how prior informativeness quantitatively reduces sample complexity. In this work, we provide the first distribution-dependent sample complexity bounds for multi-fidelity HPO with priors through the formal lens of fixed-budget best-arm identification. By modeling priors directly over arm means as configuration performance, we derive explicit, distribution-dependent error bounds that quantify the relationship between priors and evaluation budget. Our analysis shows that informative priors, which concentrate probability mass on near-optimal arms, yield reductions in the number of required evaluations, whereas baseline performance is recovered with uninformative or misleading priors. We conduct proof-of-concept experiments on a synthetic benchmark and on LCBench, a common multi-fidelity HPO benchmark for deep learning, to confirm our theoretical results, achieving up to 90% budget reduction while retaining solution quality. Together, our results provide a principled foundation for prior-guided and compute-efficient green AutoML.